is there any scientific truth in this statement? ( read details)?

Question

"knowledge acquired in one context could effect the performance of the individual positively or negatively in another context" .(transfer of training or learning)

some times learning of one task interferes the learning of another task, called negative transfer.

Answer 1

Sure, I guess. What wouldn't be scientific about it?

Is it effect or affect?

Answer 2

I'm not sure if there's "scientific" truth, but there is certainly practical truth in it.

In my case, the first time I observed a real human skull sectioned across the top (with a little hinge on one side and a jewelry box latch on the other no less!), and I saw how thin the bone is, not only at the temples, but on the sides and top as well.

Seeing how fragile it looked definitely had a NEGATIVE effect on my performance while engaging in certain physically dangerous activities, like mountain-biking. I turned into a wimp overnight!

But then I started wearing a helmet - that made me feel safer and I went back to taking chances again.

Answer 3

Barbara Wanchisen studied this effect in detail and referred to it as learning history. In other words, when an organism develops a history of a behavior pattern they then need to alter their behavior to suitable address the new contingencies, otherwise the new learning will not follow the same overall effects of the learning curve.

I, for one, ran experiments on this back in school with rats, and rats that had previously learned to receive a reward for a response-based task had a more difficult time adapting to learn how to adjust to a time-based task. They were able to do it, however the trials took nearly four times as long.

Answer 4

This is a well known effect particularly observed in studies of memory. Information learned earlier can affect information learned later (proactive interference) and information learned later may affect what was learned earlier (retroactive interference). Which of these you actually observe is sometimes related to which of them you test for, since both occur.
This phenomenon may explain why, as a professor of mine observed, David Zeaman, people who learn and emit the wrong response on one test are likely to emit the same wrong response on a second test even if they have been told the correct response. I once worked with a student studying for a final exam. I gave him a practice question which, just so happened, appeared on the final exam almost word for word. The student gave me the wrong answer and I explained for 15 minutes what the correct answer was and why. He still put down the original answer he gave me, and got it wrong.

Answer 5

From a metaphysical angle?

Knowledge is sometimes equated with beliefs based on conditioning (like the rat analogy).

Beliefs always inhibit, however well they may appear to be transferable to another context.

Knowledge never inhibits because it is gained in a state of Self-awareness.

Answer 6

Of course. That's just obvious.

Being good at kicking a soccer ball, will probably mean you're decent at kicking a football.